 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sloas v. Rowan County9/19/2003
rvice related projects and the nature of work to which a prisoner may be assigned, the jailer and the county judge/executive shall consider the physical and mental ability of the prisoner and the security of the jail and the general public. No prisoner shall be assigned to unduly hazardous work that would endanger the life or health of the prisoner or others.
Therefore, the Legislature has authorized a jailer to operate a community work program for inmates, but the Legislature has specifically required the jailer to "consider the physical and mental ability of the prisoner" and it has specifically prohibited the jailer from assigning an inmate to "unduly hazardous work that would endanger the life or health of the prisoner or others." Thus, an inmate participating in the community work program has been given a statutory right not to be assigned to work that is unduly hazardous. This statutory right includes the jailer not subjecting the inmate to endangerment of his life or health by the work of another prisoner. The jailer must also properly consider the physical and mental abilities of all the prisoners who are working in the program and the nature of the work assigned to each prisoner.
As Yanero makes clear, a violation of one of these statutory rights could lead to a finding of "bad faith" on the part of the jailer, which would preclude the protection of qualified official immunity.
In the instant case, Sloas has alleged facts which are properly left to the fact-finder in determining whether the "good faith" element has been satisfied. For example, Sloas has alleged that both Hall and Henderson were personally negligent by assigning work to the inmates that they were not qualified to perform and by failing to properly supervise the work area. In addition, Hall stated in his deposition that he had never prepared a written policy concerning community service workers, nor was he aware of any written policy concerning the work program.
The facts of the case at bar have an interesting similarity to those presented in Yanero:
Yanero's cause of action against Davis and Becker is essentially one for negligent supervision. Teachers assigned to supervise juveniles during school-sponsored curricular or extracurricular activities have a duty to exercise that degree of care that ordinarily prudent teachers or coaches engaged in the supervision of students of like age as the plaintiff would exercise under similar circumstances. [emphasis added].
The Supreme Court in Yanero went on to hold that summary judgment in favor of Davis and Becker was improper since there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants had breached their duty to Yanero. Similarly, summary judgment was erroneously granted with respect to Sloas's claims against Hall and Henderson in their individual capacity, since there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hall and Henderson breached their duty to properly assign the work to the inmates, to supervise the work of the inmates, and to provide a sufficiently safe work area. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's granting of summary judgment on Sloas's claims against Hall and Henderson in their individual capacity and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Rowan Circuit Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
EMBERTON, CHIEF JUDGE, CONCURS.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|